An alarming tendency can be observed in certain quarters: whenever secular or entrenched interest-driven groups criticize an Islamic party, organization, or personality, some scholars, activists, and supporters belonging to other Islamic traditions respond with considerable satisfaction, relief, or even enthusiasm.
This phenomenon is not merely an emotional reaction; there are also some practical reasons behind it.
The reality is that Islamic traditions have long differed on a range of issues, including ʿAqīdah (creed), Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), Manhaj (methodology), approaches to Daʿwah (Islamic outreach), and political thought. These differences have given rise to a long history of intellectual debates, criticism, and mutual opposition.
In many cases, competition and conflicts involving individuals, institutions, or partisan interests further intensify these divisions. Consequently, it is neither entirely unusual nor wholly unexpected that some people might react positively, expressing satisfaction or enthusiasm when external groups criticize a rival Islamic movement or a group with which they disagree.
However, if this phenomenon is viewed solely through the narrow lens of rivalry and ideological differences, an important dimension of the broader reality is overlooked.
The fact is that the ideological or intellectual standpoint from which such criticism emanates is generally not confined to a single organization or a particular Islamic tradition. Rather, depending on the prevailing circumstances and the issues at stake, virtually all Islamic movements, traditionalist groups, and communities committed to religious values may, at one time or another, become targets of such criticism.
In many instances, those who vocally criticize one particular Islamic party or movement also express similar or even stronger objections to other religious traditions, the community of Islamic scholars, Islamic educational institutions, madrasa education, and the Islamic intellectual and cultural heritage.
It is therefore unrealistic to interpret their criticism of one Islamic group as an expression of support, recognition, or respect for another. The assumption that opposition to one side necessarily signifies the ideological acceptance of another is untenable and without foundation.
Political and social realities must also be taken into account. At different times, particular circumstances may lead certain groups to display apparent tolerance, sympathy, or a favourable attitude towards a particular Islamic movement. Yet situational interests, political manoeuvring, power dynamics, and social exigencies should not be equated with enduring ideological commitments.
Temporary leniency towards a particular group is no proof of lasting support for it; similarly, criticism directed at another group does not constitute evidence of the critic's acceptance of any alternative Islamic tradition.
Therefore, before expressing enthusiasm over criticism directed at an Islamic party or movement, it is essential to consider the broader ideological context.
In many cases, the target of such criticism is not merely a particular organization or individual. Rather, its underlying focus may be the very notions of religious authority, Islamic heritage, Sharīʿah-based values, and Islam's active presence in the public sphere.
It is therefore wiser to adopt a far-sighted and objective perspective rather than allow the emotions of temporary rivalry and factional conflict to obscure the larger reality.
**The lesson is simple: do not celebrate another's persecution merely because you disagree with them. Those who applaud when others are targeted today may themselves become the targets tomorrow.**